brickipediafandomcom-20200229-history
Forum:Article rating
Hi all. I admit that I'm a little disappointed in the icons that we use for rating articles, so I made some new ones. Due to a conveniently annoying bug in MediaWiki's SVG renderer, the text is a little offset. I'll fix them when I'm not so lazy. Rating-u.svg|Unknown Rating-1.svg|Class 1 Rating-2.svg|Class 2 Rating-3.svg|Class 3 Rating-4.svg|Class 4 Rating-5.svg|Class 5 Rating-fa.svg|Featured They are intended to be minimalistic and not very distracting, but still visible to those who are looking for them. Please feel free to offer suggestions as to how these can be improved; our current icon set needs replacing. FB100Z • talk • 17:35, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :They are clearer. - Kingcjc 18:18, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :Plus, I must say that I dislike that some classes have icons that indicate work needs to be done, when the article is most likely as good as we can get it. (e.g. class 3/4), though that may be more of a gripe with the system in general. - Kingcjc 18:21, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :Oppose. Not the idea- I think having the numbers on the icons is a good idea so people can easily tell what class the article is. But I just think that the icons should be more... visually appealing. 22:59, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :Neutral- I like the look of The Class 2-5 and unrated more than what we have now, but I do agree that they should be more visually appealing. --Berrybrick (Talk) 23:28, September 25, 2011 (UTC) :Nuetral- Per Nighthawk.--[[User:Munchman14|'Munchman']][[User talk:Munchman14|'14']] 23:30, September 25, 2011 (UTC) * All of you monobook people forget that in oasis, it says the class beside the icon. Maybe unifying the template for both skins would make it look better? The proposed images look terrible on the oasis template btw. 00:36, September 26, 2011 (UTC) ** Strong oppose. All you Oasis people forget that in Monobook, the Oasis templates just look plain bad :) 05:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC) ** Please be reminded that, if these images are to be used, we'll probably just chuck the description text, since it becomes kinda redundant. A curious user can just click on the rating symbol to see what it means. FB100Z • talk • 16:18, September 26, 2011 (UTC) *'Neutral'... I don't really mind. 00:38, September 26, 2011 (UTC) *Thanks for all the feedback; can some of you offer some suggestions? I'm thinking of making them shinier and more button-like; sort of the glossy Web 2.0 look. FB100Z • talk • 01:27, September 26, 2011 (UTC) ** Personally I think the colour schemes of the current templates work well- purple for unrated, red for 5, yellow for 4, blue for 3, green for 2, dark green for 1, gold for FA. I like the FA logo design, but just not really in the blue. 05:09, September 26, 2011 (UTC) *** Yeah, maybe I overdid it a little with the shades of blue in my attempt to match the site colors ^_^ So, I guess my next prototype will be the glossy look, plus colors that better match the existing system. I'll keep y'all updated. FB100Z • talk • 16:18, September 26, 2011 (UTC) * I'm liking the vector idea, but the bricks for Good and Featured are a nice touch, that make us more individual. This seems to... um... factory made, if you know what I mean. Set 2 Rating-u-glossy.png|Unknown Rating-1-glossy.png|Class 1 Rating-2-glossy.png|Class 2 Rating-3-glossy.png|Class 3 Rating-4-glossy.png|Class 4 Rating-5-glossy.png|Class 5 Rating-fa-glossy.png|Featured Still needs tweaking, but they're better. FB100Z • talk • 17:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC) :Pretty nice, much better than the ones above. I'd be with implimenting these for both monobook and oasis. 18:02, October 5, 2011 (UTC) * yes it's very good. i like them. but shouldn't we have lego ones? 18:33, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ** I do like these better, except for the class one (I'd prefer it to be blue so it would seem more like a pattern). I do somewhat agree with Darth Henry, but I wouldn't mind implementing these anyway. --Berrybrick | 18:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC) *** Big round shiny circles are more fun than little brick things :3 Class 1 is green to match the green brick used in the current system, but Class 2 should be more yellowish. Thanks for all the feedback. FB100Z • talk • 21:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ****Alright, adding more yellow to #2 should help with that. Do you think you could also make the #5 a little darker, at just a glance it seems to similar to #4's dark orange. I suppose that could also be resolved by lightning #4 though...--Berrybrick | 21:23, October 5, 2011 (UTC) *****Ooh, I just saw your To-do-list, I suppose you already thought of it....--Berrybrick | 21:24, October 5, 2011 (UTC) *Okay, most of the issues have been fixed. Any thoughts? FB100Z • talk • 22:35, October 5, 2011 (UTC) * These new ones look great to me :) Just a few concerns- the GA/FA logos were LEGO-looking, I think a lot of people did like that (sorry I didn't mention that above, I actually completely forgot about that). Also, I'm not really sure how to fix this, but the old Class 2 rating said "this article's good" (I don't mean GA) with the tick. Some articles can only get as far as Class 2, and to me this Class 2 rating says "it's good but there's room for improvement", and for some articles that just isn't the case. 23:35, October 5, 2011 (UTC) *:TBH I think that all articles should be able to reach class 1 - we should be judging them based on their topic. If they go above and beyond what would be considered "complete", they should be class 1 imo. 23:38, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ** Well, "complete" was first designed specifically for articles which couldn't make it to the standards of being "good". For example, would you really want this as a GA? Because it has every bit of information relating to the minifigure listed on the page. 23:49, October 5, 2011 (UTC) ***I'd definitely say that it's good for its topic. Maybe we should have listings of GAs per type of article, which would then allow part/minifig/inventory articles to achieve "good" status. 23:51, October 5, 2011 (UTC) **** Wouldn't that go under a "good minifigure" article though, and I wouldn't compare it to Anakin Skywalker or something like that. I think we should really go back to using the complete as what it was originally intended for- not a stepping stone between class 3 and "good", but a rating for an article that is deemed to be written as best it can, but just isn't long enough to achieve that "good" status, for reasons like the set being very small, or the minifigure just being a single variant and there not being much to say about it. Then use Class 2 as a rating for something like "well written, has all the information and is MoS compliant, but could do with just a bit more expansion before being good".... but this is probably way off topic :S 23:57, October 5, 2011 (UTC) I'm going to go ahead and add these in, if nobody minds :) FB100Z • talk • 00:43, October 8, 2011 (UTC) :Okay, so...I guess I should just plug them in? FB100Z • talk • 00:49, October 15, 2011 (UTC) ::Seems no one really objects here, so go for it. :) I personally like them, definitely implement them. Much clearer. - 18:00, October 17, 2011 (UTC) *They look really good implemented. Well done FB. 11:02, October 25, 2011 (UTC)